Standing Committee B

[Derek Conway in the Chair]

Electoral Administration Bill

(Except clauses Nos. 9 to 18; any new clauses or new schedules relating to part 2 or part 3 of the Bill; any new clauses or new schedules relating to the procedure to be followed at an election on the death of a candidate; and any new clauses or new schedules relating to candidates standing in more than one constituency at an election.)

Clause 31 - Observation of proceedings and - working practices

Question proposed [this day], That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
Question again proposed.

David Heath: I was talking about overseas missions—missions from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe or the Council of Europe—observing election procedures. I have served on a number of election monitoring missions, and other members of the Committee may also have done so. When we are monitoring elections elsewhere we are, of course, accredited to the overseeing organisation, whatever that may be—the equivalent of the Electoral Commission in the Bill—and one of the requirements is that we have appropriate badges and so on to show who we are, and that we have rights of access. We have interpreters so that we can ask what is happening and observe conversations between people who are in the process of voting, or at the count.
We certainly do not say in advance which polling station or count we are going to, or give forewarning that an international monitoring mission is about to descend on that place of polling, because to do so would be completely to undermine the principle of observing that elections are free and fair. We would normally be furnished with a list of polling stations in a particular district. An observation team, usually a couple of parliamentarians with accompanying staff, has the option of devising its own plan for the day and deciding how and when the team will call at polling stations, and perhaps at the count later in the day to observe the proceedings. 
It is clear from the provisions in the Bill for accredited organisations and observers that such spontaneity will not be possible here. An observer who is already accredited by the Electoral Commission will have to apply separately to a specific returning officer, presiding officer or accounting official to be able to observe the conduct of the election. That would not be acceptable in an emerging democracy in eastern Europe or central Asia. Are we attempting to ensure that the proposal is compatible with what in loose terms are treaty obligations within the framework of  the international organisations? We may actually be putting an unnecessary impediment in the way of observation missions. 
I have not tabled amendments at this stage, because the Minister may already have had discussions with the relevant authorities on those international bodies to ensure that what is proposed is in line with their usual practice. But I suspect that it is not, and that for some reason an extra layer of bureaucracy has been interpolated, which is counter-productive to establishing, for international purposes, that our elections are free, fair and properly organised.

Harriet Harman: The clause sets out the mechanisms and arrangements for official observations of elections and electoral services. At present there is no legislative provision for elections in this country to be observed either by international or by domestic observers. The clause tackles that situation by providing for observation of elections themselves and other electoral processes such as registration and processing postal vote applications. It is long and detailed because it starts from scratch.
The clause inserts five new sections into the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The first provides for representatives of the Electoral Commission to attend elections and referendums after having notified the relevant returning or counting officer that they wish to attend. It allows a returning or counting officer to refuse or revoke permission, but they must have a reason for doing so. It sorts out the current position, which does not allow the official attendance of commission representatives, even though they are required to report on elections. 
The second new section allows Electoral Commission representatives similar access and terms to observe the working practices of electoral administrators, perhaps outside election time—for example, at registration. 
The third new section allows for individuals to be accredited as observers to attend certain election proceedings, including the issue and receipt of postal ballots, the poll and the count, and provides for individuals to apply to the Electoral Commission to be accredited as observers. Once they have obtained such accreditation, they can apply to a particular returning or counting officer to attend particular election proceedings. Both the commission and the returning or counting officer will have the power to refuse or revoke the accreditation, but in each case they must give reasons. 
The fourth new section provides for a similar accreditation to be given to organisations, to allow them to nominate members of the organisation to act as observers at the same election proceedings on the same terms. 
The last new section requires the Electoral Commission to prepare a code of practise to regulate the attendance of all the observers. The code will provide for the application process, set out the criteria for granting or refusing applications and give guidance on the operation of the code. The code must be  prepared in consultation with the Secretary of State and must be laid before Parliament. 
I am well aware of the important international role pointed out by the hon. Gentleman—in particular that played by Members of the House who go to observe elections in other parts of the world, sometimes in uncomfortable if not downright dangerous circumstances. I would like to pay tribute to all those Members who go to places such as Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Belarus and other parts of central and eastern Europe—as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has done—Iraq, and Tanzania and many other African countries. They play an honourable and important role, and I am glad to have the opportunity to pay tribute to them 
For the first time in UK law, those new sections recognise the importance of an observation process in ensuring an open and transparent election, and put us more or less on a par with other democracies. The aim has been welcomed by the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. 
Whether it be bureaucratic or not, I think that what we consider right for here is the right approach. I do not think reciprocity for the sake of it is something that would commend itself to people here. They want us to decide what we think is fair and right about the way we run elections, and how much access and openness there should be. The returning officer remaining responsible, so the idea of that person having the ultimate say makes sense to people and would command support. The returning officer must have the opportunity to say no, if necessary. He or she would have to give reasons; in practice, a refusal would be unlikely and a refusal without good reasons more unlikely. The OSCE and the ODIHR recognise that returning officers expect to know who will be serving in their areas and where they will be, for security and other reasons, such as space. 
For my own part, I would like to see parties of school students, perhaps doing their citizenship classes, attending the count. I would like to see them attending in all sorts of circumstances. Opening up and making the process more transparent is right, just so that people know what is going on. We all know about counts; we have all been there and heard the rustling of the papers—but we ought to be more open about the process. The immediate justification, of course, is our international treaty obligations, but leaving the registration officers in control of the situation is right. I commend the clause to the House.

David Heath: I do not think that we are far apart on what we are trying to achieve. The returning officer must have control over whether observers who are present for any part of the electoral process keep to the codes. If they do not, they should be removed. That is the case in whichever country one is carrying out observation missions.
Although I accept that every country has its own system, and that there is not perfect reciprocity, when monitoring, and having been accredited and within the rules that are set down, we expect to have access to any polling station on the list with which we are provided,  in order to certify that an election is free and fair. I remember going into one polling station unannounced and finding that the presiding officer had put his Kalashnikov on the table in front of him next to the ballot box. I suggested that that was not best electoral practice.

Kevin Brennan: And that was in Frome!

David Heath: It was not in Frome; it was considerably further east than that, I am happy to say.
I ask the Minister to check that we are doing what the ODIHR and the OSCE want us to do. It would be silly to go half way and allow people from emerging democracies to say that we do not allow them the same sort of access that we expect them to give to us, that the situation is not fair and that some countries are considered to be inherently fairer than others. We in this country have nothing to hide with regard to our electoral arrangements, so we should be big enough to abide by the same rules as other countries in Europe and central Asia. If the Americans can do it, so can we. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32 - Ballot paper design

Jonathan Djanogly: I beg to move amendment No. 59, in clause 32, page 40, line 17, at end insert:
', following consultation with and agreement from all registered political parties (as defined in Schedule 1 (6A) of the Representation of the People Act 1983)'.

Derek Conway: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 30, in clause 32, page 40, line 25, at end insert— 
'(5) The Secretary of State shall by order prescribe a minimum size or sizes of typeface to be used on ballot papers.'. 
No. 60, in clause 32, page 40, line 25, at end insert— 
'(d) No regulations are to be made under the provisions of this clause unless a draft of the regulation has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'.

Jonathan Djanogly: I shall discuss amendments Nos. 59 and 60 together, as they combine to produce our intended result. The style and content of ballot papers is prescribed by statute. The current design of ballot papers for first-past-the-post elections is widely accepted as being easy to understand. There are long-standing issues about the use of the official mark, which has to be applied by hand to each ballot paper at the polling station under rule 37 of the parliamentary election rules.
The procedure dates from the Ballot Act 1872. On occasion, votes have been invalid because of human error in failing to apply the official mark. That was a feature of the election petition at Winchester after the 1997 general election. For some years, there has been disquiet about the policy of numbering ballot papers and counterfoils, in case the two are combined to facilitate vote tracing other than in the context of an election petition or criminal investigation, although counterfoils can be used to trace electoral offences. 
That issue was explored in 1997 by the Home Affairs Committee, which supported a limited view that the system played little part in the prevention of personation, and that concerns about possible abuse of the system by state agencies outweighed other considerations. The Electoral Reform Society evidence considered that the existing system should be maintained because of its use in local government elections on a number of occasions to uncover fraud. The issue was raised again by the Organisation for Security and Co-Operation in Europe report on the 2005 election, which recommended the abolition of serial numbers on ballot papers. The Government response to that report set out the justifications for the current approach. 
The Electoral Commission made proposals to improve the security aspects of ballot papers in its policy report ''Equal access to democracy'', summarised in ''Voting for change—An electoral law modernisation programme''. It recommended the use of bar codes in place of serial numbers on ballot papers for detection of fraud, and watermarks in place of the official mark to reduce the scope for human error to invalidate the vote cast. The Government response accepted both proposals. The Department for Constitutional Affairs paper of May 2005 announced proposals to change the design of ballot papers in order to improve security. The proposed changes were to improve security markings on ballot papers through watermarks or security printing and to replace serial numbers on ballot papers with bar codes, allowing fraudulent votes to be more easily identified and removed. 
The paper noted that bar coding had been used in a number of recent electoral pilots, notably in the European parliamentary elections of June 2004, local elections and the north-east assembly referendum in November 2004. Bar coding would also allow electors to check with the returning officer whether their postal votes had been received before the close of voting. It would also assist returning officers who are asked to issue replacement ballot papers to electors who had not received them. At present, that is possible only up to 5 pm on polling day. 
The May 2005 policy paper also announced proposals to allow the automated production of postal vote documents that did not look identical to the ballot paper. That has been the subject of a number of pilots. At present, statutory requirements ensure that postal ballots are identical to those cast at polling stations. The policy paper says: 
''The law as it stands was originally designed to ensure that the rare postal vote did not stand out against the ones cast at the polling station which would potentially allow people to identify how someone voted''.
Clause 32 amends the provisions on the design of ballot papers to allow for two columns of named candidates in elections with several candidates. It allows the Secretary of State to make regulations on ballot paper design so that primary legislation is no longer required to make changes. I see that the  Minister of State is busily preparing herself for her response to the debate. 
We accept many of the suggested security improvements to ballot papers. Our amendments seek to avoid giving the Secretary of State such a wide power to decide on the nature and design of ballot papers without parliamentary approval. Amendment No. 59 would require consultation with all registered political parties before the Secretary of State could prescribe a different form of ballot paper. Amendment No. 60 would require regulations made under these provisions to be laid before Parliament and approved by the resolution of each House.

James McGovern: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is a tad excessive that both Houses should have to approve the size and shape of a ballot paper? Further, as ballot papers have no effect on the House of Lords, should their lordships have a say at all?

Jonathan Djanogly: That point may or may not be important; it depends how radically the Government wanted to change the ballot paper. We believe that such changes should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Given the importance of ballot papers, and the Government's poor record on electoral matters in recent times—

David Cairns: Not on winning elections.

Jonathan Djanogly: The Government may be good at winning elections, but they do not organise them so well. It is important that Parliament does not lose control.
I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 30, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), which seeks to give the Secretary of State further powers to prescribe a minimum size of font to be used on ballot papers. Our amendments, saying that Parliament should have control, supersede what my hon. Friend suggests.

David Heath: This interesting group of amendments deals with Ministers' intentions. It is clearly a de minimis issue; it would be nonsense for both Houses to debate changes in the size and design of ballot papers, but it would be entirely proper for radical changes to be debated. We ought to have the opportunity to discuss the basic rules of design.
Generally speaking, our ballot papers are well designed. However, problems for those with disabilities must be properly dealt with; the Minister knows of those concerns, and that she needs to talk to the representatives of the various disability organisations to ensure that we do our best to ensure that people can vote independently. 
Amendment No. 30, tabled by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, is about font size. Speaking as a registered optician, I entirely agree that there should be a minimum size. I find it odd that we could have a ballot paper that people with poor eyesight were be unable to read with confidence. The point is rapidly reached when it becomes difficult to ascertain exactly what is written on the ballot paper. 
There are also design issues about which we are all confused. The only ballot paper issued to me in recent years that caused me some concern was for the mayoral elections in London—I see the Minister nodding. The folding instructions were clearly harder for many people to understand than one might have expected. I cast my vote in the Brick lane polling station, and I know that the ballot paper seriously confused a number of people. That is an example of a ballot paper that was not well designed. 
There are, therefore, some basic standards and guidelines that the House should consider. There are also issues about people with disabilities, on which the Minister must have further discussions. I suspect that the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) will not press the amendments to a Division, but I hope that his points are listened to seriously.

Derek Conway: Before I call the Minister to reply, I note that the bits of paper before her suggest that she may be about to demonstrate some things visually to the Committee. Although I enjoy ''Show and Tell'' as much as the sandpit at playtime, it is important for her to bear mind the fact that her words must be intelligible to those who follow our proceedings in Hansard—so with that in mind, I am sure that she will describe whatever it is she has in front of her .

Harriet Harman: I shall, Mr. Conway.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome mentioned the importance of clear print, and the performance standards, which we shall discuss later, will feature guidance to returning officers to adhere to the Royal National Institute of the Blind clear print guidelines. The issue was raised on the Floor of the House, and there will clearly need to be discussions between the Electoral Commission and organisations such as the RNIB, just as there are discussions about how those with physical disabilities are to get into the polling station. 
Design is important, and the hon. Member for Huntingdon raised the issue of replacing counterfoils, which is dealt with in clause 33. Amendment No. 59 to clause 32 would specify that the Secretary of State may prescribe in regulations a different form of ballot paper from that in the parliamentary election rules only 
''following consultation with and agreement from all registered political parties''.
Any change could therefore be effected only after agreement from all registered political parties. However, there are between 300 and 500 such parties, and some are very—

David Cairns: Odd.

Harriet Harman: Yes, some are not what one would call mainstream, and it would not be right if we were unable to make the proposed alterations without first getting the agreement of all registered parties.
The clause helps us to achieve one of the important aims behind the Bill: modernising the arrangements for printing and producing ballot papers and for their design. We want to allow more automated procedures to be used in producing ballot papers, and that will be of particular help with the printing and dispatch of  postal ballot papers. We also want to be able to take advantage of technological developments to enhance the security of ballot papers and the electoral process. 
We want to ensure that the design of ballot papers meets voters' needs and that ballot papers are clear and easy to complete. The form of the ballot paper is set out in the parliamentary election rules in schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983. The clause amends those provisions. Currently, if we want to make any change to the form of the ballot paper, we must amend the 1983 Act through primary legislation. We want to provide for greater flexibility in making changes to ballot papers and, where appropriate, to enable changes to be made more quickly. 
A key concern is that ballot papers should be clear and easily understood by voters. Clause 32 gives the Secretary of State the power to prescribe in regulations a different form of ballot paper from the one that is currently depicted in the election rules, to amend directions to printers of ballot papers on such matters as the size and type of detail on the ballot paper, and to amend the directions on the guidance for voters voting as a result of any changes to the form of ballot paper or the directions on printing the ballot paper. 
The clause does not specify who should be consulted on any regulations made, but in practice, of course, there will be widespread consultation, and the political parties will be involved. As I said, however, the amendment is too prescriptive. The purpose of the clause is to allow changes to be made quickly to the ballot paper where they are deemed to be necessary, possibly in the run-up to an election. We do not believe that it is right to have to seek the agreement of all registered parties, and I hope that the hon. Member for Huntingdon will withdraw his amendment. 
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has said how marvellous our ballot papers are, but they could be more marvellous still. I have taken the opportunity to review a whole lot of ballot papers. We have somehow got it into our minds that they are very simple, that they are all first past the post, and that they all have Labour, Lib Dem and Tory candidates on them. Ballot papers are not like that any more. There is a great deal of complexity. I, too, met people trying to vote in the mayoral elections, the Greater London authority elections and the European elections all at the same time. All those elections had different voting systems with different ballot papers. It was very confusing indeed. 
In an election with many candidates, the ballot paper becomes longer and longer because of the rule that it must be printed in one long sheet. It cannot be printed with the items placed side by side, because that is against the rules. That needs to be changed. My personal view—I am not regulating in this instance—is that ballot papers should eventually be printed with our photographs on them so that people know who we are and that we are prepared to put ourselves forward. That would give greater flexibility. 
The hon. Member for Huntingdon mentioned counterfoils. I do not know whether it would be helpful at this point to explain that under clause 33, we  plan to replace counterfoils. No amendments have been tabled to that clause, but as the hon. Gentleman mentioned it, perhaps I may be permitted to explain that to the Committee now. 
At present, electors are given a ballot paper, their name is looked up on the electoral register, the number that corresponds to their name is taken from the register and written on the back of the counterfoil, and the counterfoil is torn off. The process is very manual and must be used for postal voting, so it not what one would call automated. 
The suggestion instead is that there should be bar codes. Many of the ballot papers in my hand clearly state that there has been postal voting; they also have bar codes. We want to ensure that we have an automated process, particularly for sending out postal votes, that does not involve someone sitting at a desk sending out postal votes and tearing off the counterfoil. 
Fraud is another important consideration. At the moment, if fraud is suspected, the police must go through all the counterfoils trying to match up individual numbers. There is no automation. If ballot papers have bar codes, however, the police can just whizz the bar codes through the machine and find the corresponding voter. There is no worry about invasion of privacy or the secrecy of the ballot, because as now, a bar code will be matched with an elector only in the case of a criminal investigation or a problem with the vote.

Jonathan Djanogly: Will the right hon. and learned Lady tell us the time scale? Is the software in place and the bar codes ready to be introduced?

Harriet Harman: I believe that the software is being developed and that bar codes are starting to appear. This will also allow counting to be automated.
That is what clauses 32 and 33 do, although ballot papers still have a long way to go. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

Brian Binley: I thank the Minister for her explanation. There is sense in moving to a more automated system, not least with regard to an election appeal, as she mentioned. However, we must be certain that in such circumstances there is an audit trail that takes us back to the very ballot paper that we might be discussing. We are not talking only about where the cross is on a ballot paper. Many registration officers used to love arguing about that years ago, and I am pleased that we have moved on a little in that respect. There is also the question of personation and double voting, in respect of which an audit trail is vital.
The Committee needs to be totally assured of the efficacy of the process right across the political spectrum, because that is an important part of ensuring that we have free and proper ballots and that we do not have the corruption that some of us fear. I am reminded of the problems in Florida with chads, chaps, chips or whatever they are called. That  situation underlined the fact that automated voting, which seems to us to be an answer to a particular problem, sometimes turns out to be less efficient than we might hope or think. I am not arguing against what the Minister proposes, but we need to be totally reassured about the purpose of the counterfoil and its use in a later election appeal.

David Heath: I support what the hon. Gentleman has said. One difficulty with any electronic form of audit is that the audit trail is in the hands of those who designed the software and who perhaps own the rights to it. The Minister will know that that is an issue in America, where particular companies own or control systems for the voting process. Given the controversy that has occurred in some states of the United States, that has become a live political issue, because there is no way to counter-check by manual means if that is necessary in an investigation what has been done electronically. That is a serious issue of which we need to be aware.
I will need some persuasion about having mugshots on ballot papers.

Brian Binley: Hardly surprising.

David Heath: I hope that if we ever moved to such a system, there would be extremely rigorous checks to ensure that the picture was a true likeness and, more importantly, a recent likeness. I occasionally look through reference books to the House and I notice that some people seem to have aged remarkably little since the late 1950s. It would be quite inappropriate to have an out-of-date or—dare I say it?—a retouched photo.

Brian Binley: ''Touching up'' is the correct term.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman says that ''touching up'' is the term. I am not sure that it is, but we need to be extremely careful that the image of candidates standing for election is not enhanced to allure voters in the polling booth.

Barbara Keeley: I would like to comment on the design and use of bar codes. It is not as though there is not a problem with the old method of physically stamping ballot papers. The council of which I used to be a member had some very close elections, which people won by two or three votes. In one election, a batch of 50 papers were not stamped with the perforation. In fact, that was in relation to the ward that I came to represent. The polling station staff were so terrified of making the same mistake again and of being accused of changing an election result that they would solemnly hold up the ballot paper and say to the voter, ''This is the official mark.'' We then discovered that people thought that the polling station officers were saying, ''This is where you must put your cross.'' There are problems with the old systems just as with bar codes.
I have two comments on what my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister said. All the places that trialled all-postal voting—I was involved with several of those trials—have found bar-coded ballot papers to be very efficient. They have been used in Trafford on a couple of occasions, and in Gateshead and Chorley. People now have experience of using bar-coded ballot  papers, and counting staff have found that the technology has improved. 
Photos were not put on ballot papers in Trafford, although a newspaper was distributed. It contained photos of all the candidates, their names and the name of the party for which they were standing. There was a tendency for candidates to prefer to use older photos. Many of the male candidates had more hair in theirs. The Minister may wish to prescribe the date of the photos.

Jonathan Djanogly: I am pleased to have prompted such a wide-ranging and amusing debate on ballot papers. Some important points have come out of our discussion. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said that the print that is used on ballot papers must be clear. We must look at that further.
A member of the RNIB explained to me that there are levels of blindness. We often think of people who are blind as those who cannot see, but there are a thousand levels in between. The size of print that is used is therefore important. I can see that the ballot paper on the other side of the Committee Room has a great deal of small writing on it. 
I accept the right hon. and learned Lady's point that it would be a slightly over-the-top requirement if all registered political parties had to sign up to any changes to the ballot paper's design. I think that she accepts my point that changes should be made only after consultation. We want to have the consent of the mainstream parties. I wish to put on the record my party's concern that we are moving away from primary legislation being the basis for approval. 
I thank the Minister for speaking about plans to replace counterfoils. It seems from hon. Members' comments that bar-coding technology is fairly well developed and is there to be used. 
I asked the Minister when we would be introducing bar-coded ballot papers throughout the country, but I am not sure that she entirely answered my question. Perhaps she could get back to me and other hon. Members on that point. An answer would be helpful, because the technology should clearly be used nationwide, although we must bear in mind the caveat given by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley). He wisely said that all electronic processes have their problems, so we should keep an eye on that. That is perhaps a project for the Electoral Commission. On the basis of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clauses 33 and 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35 - Assistance for certain postal voters

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

James McGovern: May I seek clarification from the Minister on part of clause 35? I apologise for being hoarse, but I have the cold. Proposed new rule 24(1)(c)  in schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 describes what someone requires to be able to vote by post. It says:
''together with such envelopes for their return (whether free of charge or otherwise)''.
That implies that a charge may be introduced in future. If the Bill's objective is to encourage as many people as possible to participate in the electoral process, the possibility that a charge could be introduced would contradict that objective. Will the Minister comment on that?

Harriet Harman: The clause allows the returning officer to provide information to the electorate on how to get translations of guidance for voters in different translations and Braille, and to provide visual representations or pictograms; versions of the directions that clarify how to vote by post. That might be through a hyperlink or internet address. This is deep stuff. A pictogram might be on a hyperlink to a web page containing foreign language or audio versions of the instructions or a phone number for the local electoral services department, which might well be needed.
The clause also makes a change regarding the postal voting statement—replacing the current declaration of identity, which needs to be signed by the elector only—which is to be issued with the postal ballot, and is prescribed in secondary legislation. 
I will write to my hon. Friend about—[Interruption.] Apparently there is no intention to charge, but I will have to give him further information about that in due course. 
Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36 - Tendered votes in certain circumstances

David Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in clause 36, page 44, line 38, at end insert—
'''(1ZF) If a person applies for a ballot paper and it seems to the presiding officer or a clerk that he is entitled to a tendered ballot paper under this rule, the presiding officer or clerk shall inform him of the circumstances under which he can cast a tendered ballot paper.''.'. 
My amendment would simply put a duty on the presiding officer, or a clerk, to ensure that someone who is not entitled to vote in a normal way is made aware that they are entitled to a tendered vote. It is not an onerous duty, but it seems to be appropriate; more so than a situation in which someone turns up at a polling station expecting to vote but finds out that they cannot, for reasons set out in the clause, and walks away although they are entitled to a tendered vote. If such a person made an application, the presiding officer would be obliged, under the clause, to make the necessary arrangements for them to do so. That is the purpose of the amendment, which I hope the Minister will agree is appropriate.

Jonathan Djanogly: The amendment seems to be a helpful one that would add clarity to an area that might not be clear to electors.

David Cairns: The clause, which we will no doubt discuss in the stand part debate, extends the  circumstances under which a tendered vote may be issued. There are two new circumstances in which that may happen, the first of which is when an elector attends a polling station to vote and discovers that they are included on the list of postal voters and so are not entitled to vote in person at the polling station, but denies having applied for a postal vote.
The other new circumstance is when a postal voter has lost or has not received their ballot papers and it is too late for them to apply for a replacement set. Under the proposed package of secondary legislation, the deadline for applying for a new set of papers in that situation will be extended to 5 pm on polling day. An elector who has lost their original papers and misses the deadline for obtaining a new set, may present themselves at their polling station in their constituency before the close of poll and apply for a tendered vote. 
The purpose of the amendment is to insert a new paragraph into rule 40 to provide that where a person applies for a ballot paper and it seems to the presiding officer that he is entitled to a tendered ballot paper under that rule, the presiding officer shall inform him of the circumstances under which he can cast a tendered vote. 
I appreciate that electors might find the question whether they are entitled to a tendered vote confusing, on the face of it, but we are empowering the presiding officers to ask voters certain statutory questions, some of which are designed to ascertain whether a person is entitled to a tendered vote. A person who satisfactorily answers certain questions put by the presiding officer may indeed, as the hon. Gentleman said, be entitled to a tendered vote. 
Under paragraph 7 of schedule 1 to the Bill, we are extending the questions that the presiding officer may put to cover the new circumstances, under the clause, in which a tendered vote may be issued. The questions permitted vary depending on the circumstances of the person applying for a tendered vote and will now include ''Did you apply to vote by post?'' and ''Why have you not voted by post?'' Furthermore, there is nothing to prevent polling station staff from offering information to electors if that is thought appropriate. They will, if it is deemed necessary, be able to explain to voters the rules governing tendered votes. 
That is a long way of saying that we entirely sympathise with the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, and are in fact extending the circumstances in which a person is entitled to a tendered vote. It would be odd, therefore, if we did not want to make the relevant people's entitlement known. However, there are statutory questions that should be asked of the individual to establish their entitlement. It is important that that procedure should be uniform. Thereafter, the question of Electoral Commission guidance will probably kick in. 
We are with the hon. Gentleman in spirit, but do not see a need for the amendment, because we are trying to enhance the availability of tendered ballot papers to people in the circumstances that I have  outlined. In the light of that I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

David Heath: That was a helpful response. We share the wish to maximise the number of people who could take advantage of the relevant paragraph. It is still slightly odd, given that the questions that a presiding officer can ask of a voter are so carefully prescribed—they are laid down, and the list is precise, not permissive—that the first question is not ''Do you realise that you can apply for a tendered vote?'' That is not one of the questions that can be asked; it can be asked only when an application has been made by the voter.
I accept that in practice most presiding officers will probably do as I have suggested; they will not look in the rule book and think ''Gosh, I am not sure whether I can ask whether this person knows the electoral law, and whether they have read schedule 1 to the 1983 Act recently, to inform themselves that they have a tendered vote.'' They will take it as read that they are doing their duty if they make the person concerned aware of the situation. However, that is not explicit in the Bill; in fact, the reverse is almost explicit. Because prescribed questions are to be asked, there is an inference that other questions are not to be asked as part of the process. 
Will the Minister reconsider the matter to see whether clarification can be included in the code of guidance? If so, and provided that everyone is clear that what I have described should happen, there is no purpose to my amendment. Nevertheless, it would not unduly hurt the Bill if it were accepted, so that the Minister's intention would be made clear. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37 - Undue influence

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Jonathan Djanogly: The brief points that I want to make apply to clauses 37 and 38, as we have now moved on to the subject of offences related to voting. In a survey of Conservative agents their response to the clauses was that the police often do not seriously deal with violations of electoral law. One agent was told by a senior police officer that enforcing election law is not a priority; another maintained that the police do not understand election law. Another, who originally thought the police were doing a fairly good job, came back and said there were problems. That is an important point.
We can address election law and the penalties for breaking it, but ultimately the police have to buy in to the process. I would be interested to hear to what extent, if at all, the Government, in connection with the Electoral Commission, propose to have an educational programme with the police so that we move forward on the important issues together.

Clive Betts: I shall not try your patience, Mr. Conway. I am sure that I  would be picked up fairly quickly if I, in any way, gave the impression of moving a starred amendment.
I want to try to raise an issue of concern that Ministers can consider, which may well be appropriate for the code of guidance and has been drawn to my attention by Sense on behalf of a number of charities and other bodies that represent disabled people. They believe that undue influence can also apply to the actions of a presiding officer. The concern is that someone might present themselves at a polling station who has a disability—maybe cerebral palsy, a mental illness or deafness that causes them to speak in a slurred way that is difficult to understand—and it might lead a presiding officer to decide that they do not have the capacity to cast a vote. 
Those groups are concerned about such an occurrence, and initially wanted an amendment to the Bill that would prevent that. Maybe Ministers could reflect on that. They might be prepared to consider representations from the organisations and to consider whether it would be possible to give some guidance to presiding officers to ensure that that potential was removed and anyone with such a disability was not, at first appearance, deemed incapable of casting their vote and therefore excluded from the voting process.

David Cairns: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Huntingdon for initiating this brief stand part debate. Had he not done so, I would have, because it is important that we have albeit a brief discussion of the clause to put on the record some important matters.
I said explicitly in my Second Reading speech and again on the Floor of the House—the same point has been made over and over again by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State—that we will express zero tolerance of any attempt to fraudulently influence the outcome of an election or unduly influence it by any threats or attempts to interfere with someone's free and democratic right to cast a vote in any way that he or she wishes. The next couple of clauses explicitly spell out what we will not tolerate as part of the electoral process. 
We have all accepted the commission's findings and the Government have accepted that if there has been any diminution in public trust and confidence in the electoral system, we need to actively restore it. We need to send a clear signal during the passage of the Bill to show that we are taking active steps to deal with that. 
The clause revises the offence of undue influence set out at section 115 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 to enable the offence to be effective where an attempt is unsuccessful. It is a corrupt practice, and so an electoral offence, to exercise undue influence on another in the process of voting. The definition of undue influence is necessarily wide but essentially covers persons using a variety of methods, including making threats or using force, to cause a person to vote in a particular way or to refrain from voting. 
The introduction of postal voting on demand has undoubtedly proved popular, although it is recognised that the extension of postal voting has led to greater opportunities for undue influence to be exercised on  voters. There are concerns that unscrupulous people may attempt to exert pressure on electors to apply for postal votes and vote in a particular way. There are also fears about the possibility of family members or influential members of the community exerting undue influence on the votes of others. There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that elderly people in residential care or nursing homes are vulnerable to undue influence on postal voting. 
The Electoral Commission previously recommended in its ''Voting for change'' report that the drafting of the law on undue influence should be revised to clarify the nature of the offence and to ensure that it is effective in relation to postal voting. We did not consider that the existing law on undue influence was deficient. Although the law may use terms that are not in everyday use, their meaning is clear and they cover areas including intimidation and undue influence on the part of family members. However, in the policy paper issued by my right hon. and learned Friend at the general election in May, we indicated that we were willing to consider the matter further and welcomed comments. We held further discussions with stakeholders, including the police. That addresses the point that the hon. Member for Huntingdon raised, to which I shall return later. 
The police were consulted before we brought forward this measure, as were the Crown Prosecution Service and the Electoral Commission. We are still of the view that the offence of undue influence does not need to be redefined because it is sufficient for its current purpose. However, we concluded that the current formulation of the offence limits its application, and that the offence should be widened. We are, therefore, proposing to amend the offence of undue influence to include acts of influence that do not result in action. That means that it will be an offence to attempt to exert such influence, even when that does not result in action on the part of the victim. The penalties for those found guilty of the offence of undue influence will remain unchanged. A person will be guilty of a corrupt practice and could be liable to an unlimited fine or go to prison for up to one year, or both. A person found guilty will be barred from holding elective office for five years. 
The Committee will realise the seriousness with which the Government are treating this matter. We are extending the offence beyond the question of whether it can be proven that someone unduly influenced an individual with the result that the victim voted in a particular way. Even the attempt to do that will be punishable in a severe way. That sends the message to anyone who is minded even to attempt to exert undue influence that it will not be tolerated and will be an offence. 
I have gone part of the way to answer the question of the hon. Member for Huntingdon on engagement with the police. The Department and the Electoral Commission are engaging actively with the police. There is an integrity round table and the commission is issuing guidance to police forces and to constables to assist them in dealing with electoral offences. As the hon. Gentleman quite rightly said, the police must  enforce these offences and we must listen to what they say in order to better enable them to do so. 
The valid and entirely proper point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) was not dissimilar to points made during the Second Reading debate about individuals with learning difficulties, especially on signing for the ballot paper. We must deal with that matter with the utmost sensitivity. Clear guidance must be given, and we are seeking to introduce national performance standards. That issue can be addressed as part of those national performance standards, but we cannot be too sensitive in dealing with individuals. It was genuinely distressing to hear the examples that my hon. Friend cited. That is not tolerable in the 21st century. However, we can deal with that with the general advice and performance standards that we seek to produce as a result of the Bill. I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the matter to our attention.

Clive Betts: Is my hon. Friend therefore prepared to receive specific representations from the groups in question to see how they can help shape the guidance on those matters?

David Cairns: Absolutely, yes. I am happy to give that assurance. We have already given an assurance, which I made in the House, that we would deal with organisations concerned with access to polling stations for people with physical disabilities. I am happy to extend that assurance to my hon. Friend.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38 - Offences relating to applications for

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Cairns: I do not wish to detain the Committee any longer than necessary. However, it is important not to allow the clause to slip by without remark because it introduces one of the 10 offences that were outlined earlier. The clause deals with some of the issues that have been raised recently about the integrity of postal voting in a couple of wards. For obvious reasons, I will not comment on the individual cases. In clause 38, we introduce a new electoral offence of falsely applying for a postal vote. It will be both a corrupt practice and a criminal offence to apply for a postal or proxy vote with the intention of stealing another person's vote or gaining a vote to which the applicant is not entitled.
The provisions implement recommendations made by the Electoral Commission. As members of the Committee know, there are a number of offences relating to fraud and corrupt practices at elections, but there is no specific electoral offence of fraudulently applying for a postal or proxy vote, and we wish to rectify that. A specific offence of fraudulently applying for a postal vote will make it easier to bring  prosecutions and will demonstrate that the House is taking the matter seriously. 
The new offence provisions will cover the following activities: applying for a postal or proxy vote as some other person, including a fictitious or dead person; otherwise making a false statement in an absent vote application; inducing the returning officer to send a postal ballot paper or any communication relating to a postal vote to an address that has not been agreed by the person entitled to the vote; and causing a communication relating to a postal or proxy vote or a postal ballot paper not to be delivered to the intended recipient. 
The clause specifies that the intention that must be proved is that the person intended to deprive another of the opportunity to vote, or intended to gain a vote to which he was not entitled, or intended to make a gain of money or property. 
A person convicted will be guilty of a corrupt practice, and could face up to two years in prison, an unlimited fine, and being prevented from being registered to vote or stand as a candidate for five years. I believe that the clause sends the clearest possible signal that the House will not tolerate any attempt to interfere with postal or proxy voting by an attempt to steal or deprive another person of their vote.

David Heath: I welcome what the Minister has said. It is helpful that he has been as explicit as he has. However—I will say this within the confines of the Committee—he overstates a little the impact of what is being proposed, because I believe that those are already corrupt practices. None the less, I accept the fact that making that matter explicit means that no one can be under any illusion that to commit such acts, which we all rightly wish to stamp out, is unacceptable. I entirely support the Minister's view that we should have zero tolerance for that sort of practice, both in national and party political terms. If any of our parties have members within them who are engaging in practices of that kind, there should be no doubt whatever that they will be reported to the authorities and action will be taken. There should be no attempt to hide what is going on. I hope that all party representatives in this House will assert clearly that they will not tolerate activities of that kind.
I make one minor point. If someone were to obtain the services of others in trying to commit such offences, presumably there is an appropriate conspiracy offence that would be applicable. It would be perverse if people who were hoping for a gain of money or property in response to an inducement made by some other person in order to farm votes, or something of that kind, were prosecuted under proposed new section 62A(1)(b), but if the person who was doing the organising was not committing an offence by so doing. I am not absolutely clear that, under the strict terms of the clause, the person doing the organising would be committing an offence, but I believe that there are other ways of achieving a satisfactory prosecution. Can the Minister confirm that?

David Cairns: I regret that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the explicit confirmation that he seeks. If I can do so in writing, I will. We agree with the broad thrust of what he said and we are sending out the clearest possible signal that we will pursue anybody minded to attempt to get around the provision in any way. I shall be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with the explicit assurance that he seeks.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39 - Control of documents after

David Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in clause 39, page 47, line 16, after third 'the', insert 'marked'.

Derek Conway: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 11, in clause 40, page 4, line 39, after second 'the', insert 'marked'.

David Heath: We now come to the control of documents after a parliamentary election and the issue of marked registers and access to them. This is, to an extent, a probing amendment, because I want to understand the relationship between this clause and clause 43, which deals with marked postal voters lists. There is no clear link, but clause 43 will provide explicitly for postal voters lists to be marked. Currently, we have the strange phenomenon that marked lists are to be kept of those who have voted in an election unless they happen to vote by post or by proxy by post. The procedures adopted by electoral returning officers in different parts of the country vary enormously, in terms both of their marking of lists and of whether they are prepared to make those lists available to the political parties during or after an election.
A degree of controversy has arisen in several elections about whether, particularly in the context of an all postal ballot, it is appropriate to provide a running total of marked postal voters lists. Some would say that it is inappropriate to give that information to political parties and others would argue strongly—I think that I am one of them—that it is in the interests of electors and of the political process that those marked lists be available because it prevents repeated canvassing of people who have already cast their vote. It is in their interests for everybody to know that they have voted and that it is a waste of time to continue knocking on their doors. In that way they will not be bothered on their doorsteps. 
My amendment simply inserts the word ''marked''. I would welcome clarification from the Minister of how the two clauses that I mentioned fit together, and whether it is his intention that the marked postal voters lists be made available to political parties either during the course of an election or following its completion.

David Cairns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having tabled a probing amendment and I am happy to confirm that the intention is that the word ''marked'' should be read before all of the lists—there  will be marked copies of the postal voters list; marked copies of the list of proxies and marked copies of the proxy postal voters list. However, to answer his second point, it is our intention to make the marked postal voters list available only after the election.

David Heath: At least I now know what the Government's intention is and I am grateful for the Minister's clarification. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clauses 40 to 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43 - Marked postal voters list

Eleanor Laing: Clause 43 concerns the marked postal voters list. Rule 37 of the parliamentary election rules, contained in schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983, makes provision for the full electoral register to be marked at polling stations—as we discussed with the last amendment—to show whether an individual has been issued with a ballot paper. Obviously, that is done to prevent electors from voting more than once. Because people who vote are not allowed to remove ballot papers from the polling station, it can be assumed that if an elector's name has been marked on the register, that person has cast a vote. However, that is not the case with postal votes. There is an absent voters list of electors who have voted by post, which is drawn up by the returning officer, but when the ballot papers have been issued, that list is marked to indicate that the ballot papers have been sent out. However, there is no list to indicate whether postal votes have been returned.
Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 would ensure that the marked postal voters list is as comprehensive as possible by ensuring that it is marked not only when a postal vote has been returned, but when a person registers for a postal vote. The list will then be required separately to show electors who are registered for a postal vote and electors who have voted already by post. A BBC presenter made much of being denied a ballot paper because he was listed as having been sent a postal vote. If there were a more comprehensive list, it would clearly show who had cast a postal vote, enabling the electoral registration officer to see quickly whether someone is entitled to cast their vote in person. At present, there is no way to check that, and our amendments would rectify that.

David Cairns: The purpose of amendment No. 61 appears to be to ensure that separate records are kept of persons who register for a postal vote before or during the election.
Mrs. Laing indicated dissent.

David Cairns: I think that that was not what the hon. Lady wanted to discuss, but may I deal with the issue that she left hanging? It may be thought that the clause would increase the instances of late applications for postal votes, which means more fraudulent activity. If that were the case, I would be able to tell her that I was not convinced by the strength of that  argument, which she did not make. None the less, I shall make it for her, and knock it down. There is, of course, nothing inherently suspicious about applications being made close to the deadline—

Eleanor Laing: Nothing at all.

David Cairns: —although, of course, in other legislation, we are going to move the deadline. However, there would normally be a good reason why an elector would wish to apply for a vote nearer to the deadline. We think that it is good that people have the option of applying for a postal vote, so avoiding being disenfranchised.

Eleanor Laing: The Minister is answering an argument that I did not make. He is not wrong; I agree with him.

David Cairns: I think that I may be able to answer the hon. Lady's question now—but no, perhaps I shall wait for inspiration that is rather more legible. I think that I am correct in saying that in the instance that she quoted—for reasons of pure cowardice, I am not going to cast aspersions on the individual, lest I face him at the crack of dawn one day—the matter was resolved to the extent that he had applied for the postal vote, but had forgotten that he had done so. He may have ticked the box requesting postal votes for ever, but he thought that he had ticked the box for just one election. I think that that was the resolution of that. I remember seeing a exchange of particularly furious e-mails from that presenter and the returning officer for Hammersmith and Fulham—or wherever it was.
There is already a list of people who have applied for postal votes, but what was at stake in that case was that the officials told the presenter that he had applied for a postal vote and he said that he had not. That was the dispute; it was not that there was not a list available for the officials to consult. I am not sure that the hon. Lady's amendment addresses that matter.—[Interruption.] By happy, fortuitous coincidence, that is exactly what my inspiration was trying to tell me, so I think that I have addressed the point.

Eleanor Laing: I accept the Minister's explanation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44 - Returning officers: correction of

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Heath: I have no problem with the intent behind the clause, which deals with the correction of procedural errors. However, the law as it stands, and as it will stand, is a quite draconian imposition on returning officers, who will be guilty of a criminal offence if they make an error in executing their duties. The import of the clause is that if they correct that error, even after they have been charged with an offence, they will not be guilty of that offence. The  Minister is nodding, but that makes nonsense of their being charged with the offence in the first place.
There is no time scale for correcting the procedural error; it can even be corrected post-election, when the damage will already have been done to the chances of one or more candidates. If proceedings are taken against the officer, he can still, as far as possible, correct the procedural error. He will then not be guilty of an offence, which does not sound very sensible. I am sure that the intent is good, and I do not quarrel with it, but this seems an odd way of doing things.

David Cairns: Clause 44 allows returning officers to correct errors or omissions that arise during the preparation for and conduct of a UK parliamentary election or local elections in England and Wales. It will also allow returning officers to direct that erroneous acts and omissions made by other persons involved in administering elections be corrected. That includes presiding officers, electoral registration officers and their staff, and those supplying goods and services to the administrators. For example, electoral documents such as ballot papers printed with incorrect details could be corrected.
The clause also provides that a returning officer will not be found guilty of an offence for an act or omission that is in breach of his official duty if he can demonstrate that he has corrected that error in full by taking steps under subsection (1), as the hon. Gentleman said. 
I may have nodded a bit precipitously earlier, because I thought that the hon. Gentleman was heading in one direction with his question, but then he went off in another. We have been assured by the parliamentary draftsmen, however, that the clause is phrased in the way that it should be. 
When I was looking into this issue in preparation for the Committee, I was amazed by the number of things that are not allowed to be corrected, including the declaration. Should the returning officer simply read the numbers out wrongly when declaring a result, that declaration will be the result. Clearly, that is absurd, and the clause would allow such things to be put right. 
The clause is intended to give returning officers a degree of flexibility. Mistakes happen, and although serious ones would obviously have to be dealt with elsewhere, minor inadvertent mistakes by the returning officer or those under his charge could be corrected. Currently, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, they are not, and that is what I was nodding at. 
I do not entirely share the hon. Gentleman's fears about the way in which the clause is phrased, but we share the same intent. The clause is clearly a common-sense provision. If people can correct minor mistakes and demonstrate that they have done so, they should not be prosecuted. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman some satisfaction.

David Heath: I am grateful. I am not entirely convinced that we should prosecute returning officers for errors and omissions that are made neither with intent nor through recklessness. In any case, to revisit debates that have been held elsewhere, and as the  Minister says, people make mistakes. However, they are not usually hauled before the courts for it. They should be allowed to correct an innocent error; but if an error or omission was made with intent to pervert the course of an election, it should be prosecuted irrespective of whether it was subsequently discovered and corrected. The offence is described wrongly. Innocent errors and acts of omission should not be dealt with as if they were criminal offences, but deliberate errors or acts of omission ought to be dealt with seriously even if they are subsequently corrected.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clauses 45 and 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47 - Political party description

Eleanor Laing: I beg to move amendment No. 64, in clause 47, page 54, line 28, leave out 'up to five'.
The amendment continues with an issue first raised on clause 23 by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon at Tuesday afternoon's sitting—descriptions of independent candidates. I shall not repeat the arguments made two days' ago, as the Committee properly considered the matter then. 
The amendment would remove the Government's new limit on the number of variations allowed on a political party's description. The clause would thus read, ''A party's application under section 28 may include a request for the registration of descriptions to be used on nomination papers or ballot papers.'' The limit of ''up to five'' would be unfair to political parties; independents would be able to call themselves whatever they wished, yet candidates from political parties would be prevented from using regional variations.

David Cairns: Then what is the point of being an independent?

Eleanor Laing: Surely there can be nothing wrong with a member of a political party being attached to a particular region or area—or even a village. Given that subsequent provisions allow returning officers to prevent confusing or mischievous descriptions, I see no reason why the number of variations should be limited.
The desire to maximise the opportunity for independents to describe themselves in any manner they wish seems highly inconsistent with a clause that radically restricts the ability of political parties to do the same. Parties will be limited to five different types of description, although I appreciate that the number can be varied by the Secretary of State. Perhaps the Minister would give an undertaking that the Secretary of State would be willing to make such variations. Independents could therefore run as '''Independent for Liverpool''; but a registered party could not nominate itself as ''Liverpool Labour'' or ''Liverpool Conservative''. [Laughter.] I appreciate that that would not bring in a large number of votes for my party in that area, but there are some Conservatives in Liverpool

Jim Devine: Name them.

Eleanor Laing: I probably could name them, but it would not take long. I must be careful, Mr. Conway, to treat Conservatives in Liverpool with respect. They are a fine and courageous band.
Why is it wrong to be ''Liverpool Labour'' or ''Liverpool Conservative''—or even ''Liverpool Liberal''? Surely, it cannot be right that independent candidates will be free to use any description they wish but each political party will be limited to one of its five registered descriptions. It seems counter-intuitive that political parties will not be allowed to use the descriptions that they wish to use. It would not be reasonable to amend the Bill as we suggest except that checks are already in place to ensure that descriptions are not misused and do not cause confusion among the electorate. If the Minister does not accept the amendment, he will be advocating simplicity for political parties but diversity for independents. That would simply be unjust.

David Heath: There is nothing that I can possibly say on this that I did not say on Tuesday, with the possible exception of the Welsh and Gaelic that arose on that occasion. We have made the arguments, but the Minister does not agree. I imagine that he has not changed his mind since Tuesday, but we live in hope.

David Cairns: Mr. Conway, you will recall our long and magnificent debate on a related theme a day or two ago. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State said then, the Government are in listening mode. We have made that clear all along. No doubt the hon. Gentleman might wish to revisit the issues that we discussed the other night during later stages of the passage of the Bill. However, clause 47 permits a registered political party to register with the Electoral Commission up to five descriptions for use on ballot papers. That would implement the Electoral Commission's recommendation on standing for election in the United Kingdom, published in June 2003, allowing one description each for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and the UK as a whole, and would simplify the use of party descriptions for the benefit of candidates and returning officers.
Following the commission's recommendation, we feel that five is a reasonable number of descriptions, particularly when one bears it in mind that the limit for the central register of emblems is three. As part of the consultation, there was a move to limit those descriptions, also, to three, but the commission thought that allowing five would give flexibility for all the nations of the United Kingdom and provide one for the UK as a whole. 
I can see the attraction of the hon. Lady's position. A number of years ago, the Conservative party in Scotland rebranded itself the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party. I have to tell the hon. Lady that that has not done it an awful lot of good in terms of attracting more voters in Scotland—

Eleanor Laing: rose—

David Cairns: The hon. Lady is now champing at the bit.

Eleanor Laing: I myself stood as a Scottish Conservative and Unionist candidate, and I received 5,420 votes.

Kevin Brennan: A remarkable achievement.

David Cairns: And on that basis, the hon. Lady is now the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland. What a wonderful thing democracy is; we live in such happy times.—[Interruption.] I am sorry that I did not catch what the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) said from a sedentary position, but I am sure that it was very witty.
I understand the arguments that were made on Tuesday and do not intend to revisit them at this stage. None the less, we have a reasonably clear understanding that allowing the political parties up to five descriptors addresses the main concerns that they had at the time of the consultation. They should be allowed some flexibility but not an open book—that would take the focus away from what we are trying to do, which is to have a centrally held register of such things and put the onus back on individual returning officers, who would have to make to make decisions about the appropriateness of such descriptions. It was felt that taking a national approach, with a fixed, centrally registered, number of descriptions would remove possible confusion and give a degree of certainty. 
I say that without prejudice to any further discussions that may take place about the independent descriptions. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Lady will ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Eleanor Laing: The Minister has explained the position very well. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clauses 48 to 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 52 - Time for delivery of unaudited accounts to Electoral Commission

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Henry Bellingham: May I ask the Minister to explain the logic behind the substitution in the clause? Why is the time to be four months, rather than three?

David Cairns: My hon. and learned Friend prompts me to say that it is a month longer, which is the literal response to the question.
Clause 52 extends the time for political parties that are not required to have their accounts audited to submit them to the Electoral Commission. Parties with accounts of less than £250,000, of which there are 287, compared to 15 with income and expenditure above that amount, are not required to have their accounts audited, but they are required to submit their accounts to the Electoral Commission within three months of the end of the financial year. As the hon. Gentleman  noted, the clause increases that time period to four months, which we believe is more proportionate, given that the parties have fewer resources. It is an attempt to ease the regulatory burdens on smaller parties. There is no more to it than that. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clauses 53 to 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 56 - Register of donations to include details of nature of donation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Heath: I rise on this clause as a matter of convenience to ask whether the Ministers have given any further thought to the point that I raised on Second Reading. I asked about the parallel provisions under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and the Representation of the People Act 1983 for the recording of donations to Members of Parliament and the House authorities' requirements. I suggested that it might be sufficient for the Electoral Commission to have the right of audit of our internal systems in order to satisfy itself that donations, in cash or in kind, were properly recorded, rather than requiring Members to make parallel registrations of donations in two different places with slightly different criteria, which causes problems for Members. That view is shared by the Electoral Commission. It is rather complex in legislative terms, but it would be welcomed by hon. Members and by those who regulate our activities.

David Cairns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me this opportunity to say that I gave an undertaking in my winding-up speech on Second Reading that we would give serious consideration to his point.
It is not only members of the Committee who share the concern that the dual reporting of the matters in question with slightly different tweaks is not really necessary, and that reporting to one body, monitored by the other—whichever it happens to be—would be better. 
I understand that the Standards and Privileges Committee is examining the issue, and we shall need to take a long, hard look at its findings, and move towards a more rational approach. I am happy once again to give the undertaking that I gave in the House. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clauses 57 to 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 60 - Referendum and election material

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Henry Bellingham: Quite a lot of disputes, some uncertainty and at times vexatious complaints can  arise over imprints. If a candidate decides to use material from a previous election in which they stood—posters would be the obvious example—but the agent has changed and the previous agent does not give permission for the imprint to be used, is there any way of overriding that lack of permission?
The relevance of the matter is that when you and I, Mr. Conway, began our political careers, many years ago—we were both elected to this place for the first time in 1983, although of course since then we have both been in and out—posters were normally paper. Now Correx posters are all the rage; they are a great deal more expensive and election rules allow them to be re-used. However, I should like clarification of the point about the imprint. As we move to a different type of electioneering, using different types of materials and facilities, the point will grow more relevant. I do not know whether I am making my inquiry under the correct clause, but I should be grateful for guidance.

David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk for raising those points. An opportunity has been missed in the clause to clear up several confusions about the use of imprints, and a clearer and slightly more radical wording would be better. There is a fog of confusion about what does or does not need an imprint. I am sometimes given the advice that several parts of a single piece of paper need imprints, in case someone tears or cuts them off, leaving a piece of paper with no imprint. That seems like nonsense to me. If one publishes a document, what someone does with it later is their business. If it has an imprint on it, it should comply with the law.
Another issue is whether, in local authority elections in which a leaflet promotes several candidates—all the county council candidates in an area, for example—the name of each one is required in the imprint. It appears that at the moment that would be required. In Somerset I think that the council has 57 or 58 members, so if the names of that many candidates had to appear in the imprint to make its distribution promoting their candidacies legal, the result would be a rather long imprint, which would not improve clarity or reliability in the electoral process. It therefore seems sensible to reconsider the whole question of what is required for imprints. 
Two more notes have been given to me. I do not entirely understand them, but I hope that the Under-Secretary does. One is that the 2001 legislation that suspended the introduction of new imprint rules is not repealed, so the clause will not come into effect. Is that correct? Will he also make it clear that the requirements of the Newspapers, Printers, and Reading Rooms Repeal Act 1869 does not apply to election material? I hope that he can make that absolutely clear, and I look forward to his reply with interest.

David Cairns: Not as much as I do. I shall reflect on my answer after I have given it.
Clause 60 makes three changes to the requirements for imprints on election and referendum material. In the case of closed list elections—that is, European parliamentary  elections, GLA elections, Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly elections—although obviously not in elections in first-past-the-post constituencies, the imprint requirement on election material makes it permissible to list solely the names of political parties, rather than the names of all the candidates on the party list, as the person on behalf of whom the material is published, as is the current requirement. It is a sensible and practical measure. 
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome asked a sensible and practical question about whether or not all 59 council candidates needed to be listed. The clause relates solely to party lists and not to individual requirements, so I do not have an immediate answer his question because it is not directly relevant, but I shall try to be helpful and find out. 
As the hon. Gentleman mentioned when he referred to one of his notes—the one that I understood—the Election Publications Act 2001 suspended the three-part requirement under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 for election material of printer, promoter and person on behalf of whom the material is being published and who is not the promoter. The requirement was suspended when it was found that political parties still had large stocks of material with the old-style imprint of printer and publisher. 
It is quite clear that sufficient time has now passed so that the 2000 Act three-part requirement should be solely in force, which is what the clause does, and we will in due course consult the parties on the appropriate implementation date. 
Finally, although I shall return to this point before my last, ''And finally, Cyril,'' I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point about using posters with the name of someone who is not the agent. That probably crosses some line. I appreciate his concern if he has a large stockpile of posters from a previous election that he did not manage to put up. Perhaps my Scottish thrift and that of the hon. Member for Epping Forest is seeping into him and he does not want to waste them. 
The role of agent is clearly defined in law and carries with it many legal obligations and duties. I am not immediately attracted to the idea of being able to put up posters that have the wrong agent's name on them. Nor do I believe that the person who is not the agent would be attracted to the idea. We all know that agents are legally responsible for large numbers of things that happen during elections.

Jim Devine: Will the Under-Secretary clarify whether putting a sticker with the name of the new agent on it across the board would suffice?

David Cairns: It depends. Stickers can fall off and be blown away. Should we deface posters so that they cannot be read? Frankly, it would be better simply to get new posters.
I take my hon. Friend's point, but I am still minded to stick to my original thinking on this matter. We should not put up literature that describes as the agent the name of someone who is not the agent, because the  agent has very serious legal duties and responsibilities. We all know that agents can be imprisoned for such breaches, so I am not drawn to that particular example.

David Heath: I am not trying to legislate on the hoof. I honestly think that we might have a more relaxed view on posters with no editorial content, which simply say the name of a candidate and a party, than on literature that clearly has editorial content, with which there is strict legal liability for what is written.

David Cairns: I am sorry; I do not agree. Suppose that someone plasters posters all over a shop window or somewhere that they should not be, and the name on the bottom of them is the election agent. Clearly, the police are going to knock on the door of the person whose name is on the bottom. If they were not the person, they would be upset by that. Therefore, I am not convinced that we should exempt posters.

Henry Bellingham: The Minister must recognise that paper posters cost next to nothing, and that in rural constituencies—I do not know if he has any rural stretches in his constituency—there is a tendency to put up Correx posters, which are extremely expensive. A standard 4x4 Correx poster is about £100, so one can easily burn up one's election expenses if one has more than a few of them. Of course, some get stolen, defaced, eaten by cows or run over by tractors. After the last election, we recovered a number of them, which we intend to use again; putting in a second-hand amount for them, obviously. What is the Minister's view about changing the imprint—cutting out the old imprint and replacing it—and reusing them? Many candidates in rural constituencies are likely to ask the Electoral Commission about that closer to the next election.

David Cairns: I have both an urban part and a large rural part of my constituency. For reasons that may or may not appeal to the hon. Gentleman, I do more of my campaigning in the urban part of my constituency. We do not tend to plaster the rural parts with quite the amount of Correx with which he will plaster his rural parts. That might say something about where we anticipate attracting support.
When the new law was implemented, allowing breathing space for people to use up old stocks was the right thing to do, but a number of years have passed since then. I am told that that Electoral Commission is looking into that—the busy bunch of happy elves that they are there—and that it will issue guidance and guidelines on that. We do not need to be too prohibitive on this issue in the Bill, but I foresee some problems prima facie; on the hoof, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome says, which is no reference to the hungry cows. At this stage, I am not minded to entertain hon. Members suggestions. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 61 - Performance of local authorities

Clive Betts: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in clause 61, page 63, line 24, at end add—
'(4A) The standards for registration officers determined by the Commission shall include a requirement to notify all registered electors of their status as soon as the final register has been compiled.'.

Derek Conway: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 32, in clause 61, page 64, line 5, leave out
'may from time to time' 
and insert 'must'. 
No. 33, in clause 61, page 64, line 6, leave out 'such reports' and insert 'an annual report'. 
No. 12, in clause 70, page 69, line 6, leave out paragraph (b).

Clive Betts: With these amendments, I seek ministerial clarification on two issues. The first issue, which is dealt with in amendment No. 31, is the content of the guidance on standards of performance that the commission is to lay down. I have chosen as an example an area in which guidance might be given, because I have seen a good practice adopted by at least one local council that might usefully be followed by others. It might surprise hon. Members to know that it is Westminster borough council that has adopted that good practice. I know that it has a certain history in electoral matters; we all know of that council's strange record of attempting to manipulate electoral practice through its housing policy, but the matter I raise has nothing to do with that. Indeed, I am sure that if I discussed that matter any further, you would accuse me of straying from the amendment in question, Mr. Conway.
What Westminster does as a matter of good practice is this; each February, when the final register is drawn up, it sends to everyone on the register what is in effect a mock poll card to confirm that they are registered on the electoral list. Well before any local, regional, European or national elections—obviously, it was before the national election recently—everyone on the list in Westminster receives a poll card similar to the one that they will receive at the time of the election. The advantage of that system is that everyone can see whether they are on the list when they still have time to do something about it if they are not, if their registration is wrong or if someone is registered at their address who should not be. In February or March, the individual can go along and correct the registration if it is wrong, ensure that they are registered or get themselves registered in good time for the forthcoming elections. It would be helpful if other local authorities followed that good practice. 
I ask Ministers to consider whether they would like the Electoral Commission to include that practice in its standards of performance. I well recollect that when we had the Second Reading debate, the ministerial response to a number of issues was, ''That could be in the standards of performance.'' There is general  agreement that a national standard of performance is needed for electoral registration officers. Practice varies so much on so many matters throughout the country. It is important that the register for national elections is drawn up on a common basis, so performance standards are clearly important. 
As well as suggesting that one example of good practice, I intended to ask Ministers how far they intend to direct or indicate to the Electoral Commission what should be in the standards of performance. Will Parliament have an opportunity at any time to discuss, consider, reflect on and make suggestions about what should be in those standards, or will the Electoral Commission produce the standards by itself, independently, exclusively and almost secretively, with no elected Members having a chance to comment? The amendment gives us a chance to tease out from Ministers how the standards of good performance will be drawn up, whether that will be done openly, whether there will be consultation and whether Members of Parliament as well as Ministers could have an input. 
I hope that Ministers will take up my second amendment in some form, even if it does not use the right form of words. As I understand it, the form of words in the Bill allows the Electoral Commission to require relevant officers—including, most importantly for this purpose, electoral registration officers—to produce reports. My amendment says yes, there should be reports, but there should be a report every year; not that there may be a report, but that there must be an annual report. That is crucial. If we are giving electoral registration officers new powers and responsibilities to ensure that registers are accurate, in that people who are entitled to register are registered and those who are not entitled are not registered, it is crucial that officers be required to produce every year a report indicating the extent to which they believe that they are fulfilling their duties and the extent to which the people who are entitled to register in their areas are registered; the extent to which their register is accurate. 
I hope that, as well as providing the basis for a report to the Electoral Commission, that report would form the basis for a report to the local council, which could be referred to the council's scrutiny committee, so that every electoral registration officer was scrutinised every year on their annual report. I also hope that Ministers might consider the Electoral Commission making an annual report to Parliament based on the annual reports from electoral registration officers, so that we have a chance to scrutinise in the House the performance of EROs throughout the country and to consider how they perform one against another. I am sure that there will be big differences and it would be interesting to start asking questions and to get local councils to act and to answer questions, particularly about registration officers whose performance appears to be somewhat worse than that of their colleagues in other authorities. 
I have two aims, the first of which is to tease out how we will go about producing national standards. Secondly, can we have an assurance that there will be an annual report from each electoral registration  officer and other relevant officers at local councils? That report would form the basis of a report to be referred to the scrutiny committee, with the possibility of an investigation at local level. It would also form the basis of a report to the Electoral Commission, which would report to Parliament. We could then scrutinise the performance of one registration officer against another to see how accurate different local authorities' electoral registers are.

David Heath: May I open by saying that I entirely support the points made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe? His local government background permits him to speak with authority on these matters. I come from a local government background in another part of the country.
I agree with his point that the procedure should enable the local authority to make an assessment of performance in the first instance. We should then be told whether that assessment is in the affirmative. There is an enormous disparity in performance across the country, and there should not be. Electoral registration is a function that is organised locally, and all elections are controlled locally. The integrity of the voting system is, however, a national function. We, as a country, are entitled to ensure that every part of the country performs to adequate standards. 
For that reason, I welcome clause 61. It is right to have some form of performance audit of the various officers who are involved with electoral registration and administration. My only plea is that a checklist or tick boxes to say that we have met so many targets is not included. That is not the way in which we should measure performance. We should share the type of good practice that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe mentioned. His is an extremely good suggestion. He said that we must ensure that, after a registration process, people know that they are registered or, more importantly, that they are not. 
The issue shall no doubt be discussed again. We must be more obvious in our efforts to encourage people to be on the electoral register. That point was raised time and again on Second Reading, particularly by hon. Members on the Minister's side of the House. Registration should be done much better. To do that, we must have effective processes, but we must also make more noise. 
We must use methods such as those suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) on Second Reading. He suggested a registration week in which there would be a maximum flow of information to the electorate to ensure that they knew that they should be registering to vote. We should not only put letters through letterboxes or knock on doors but stop people on the buses or in tube stations to ask whether they have registered. If they have not, we can tell them how to. We must make people aware that they should be registering. 
Some local authorities are good at ensuring that those who are eligible have registered; others are very poor indeed. The Government are absolutely right to stress consistency of performance across the country. I hope that will emerge from the Bill. 
We should be able to audit performance satisfactorily, without resorting to bean counting. We must share examples of good practice. Those authorities that are identified as falling short of expectations must use the local government structures in order to do better. The scrutiny committees that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe mentioned were not around when I was involved in local government. However, they are most definitely part of local government practice now. The scrutiny committees should be used to ensure that performance is monitored adequately. 
I have one amendment that does not really sit with the others. Amendment No. 12 would amend clause 70, because that is the extent clause. One fact that has been clearly drawn to our attention is that the provisions do not extend to Northern Ireland. There is no obvious reason why they should not. The Electoral Commission would like a degree of oversight of arrangements in Northern Ireland. Those who represent Northern Irish seats in this House would like the commission to have some oversight of the arrangements. 
Perhaps there has not yet been sufficient communication between the Minister's Department and the Northern Ireland Office to achieve a happy conjunction of objectives. If so, I urge the Minister to get in touch with a degree of alacrity, because it seems that if we can sensibly send the provisions to Northern Ireland there is no reason not to do so. If everyone wants that to happen and the only problem is the fact that it is not in the Bill, I hope that by the completion of its parliamentary passage it will extend to as many parts of the country as possible.

David Cairns: I am tremendously grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe for allowing us to tease out what we envisage will form the national standards that have been prayed in aid at various stages of the progress of the Bill. When Ministers struggle to answer a particular question, it is always a great lifeline to hold up national standards that will come over the hill and clear us from the mire. None the less, they are important.
I beg your indulgence, Mr. Conway, to move slightly beyond the narrow terms of the amendments to answer some of the questions that have been asked in this short debate. It is clear that the standards and performance of the conduct of elections throughout the country varies enormously. I, too, was a local councillor, and if we were honest we would all say that there was little direct impetus to send a lot of money towards electoral registration officers or to take a great degree of interest in what they were doing. We could not monitor them as we could the standards of social services—or, in Scotland, social work. They were not held accountable to external standards and we did not really know what they were doing with the money. We knew that we had to give money in order for them to conduct what they were statutorily required to, but beyond that, the service—at least in the local authority of which I was a member—was tucked away at the end  of the corridor, and most people did not know what was going on. 
We are calling EROs out into the open and saying that we value what they are doing. They are at the heart of what we are about when we talk about increasing participation in the electoral process. That is why we are committing additional resources, but with those resources must come some external measurement of how they are used, and of the outcomes. The variance may be to do with the allocation of resources and money, and staff availability. At budget time, that was always a relatively easy cut to make. Faced with cutting £20,000 from the ERO budget or losing a nursery teacher, it was easy. Those of us who made such decisions perhaps did not always understand the vital importance of the service.

David Heath: I am sure that that is sometimes the case. Human issues may also be involved, as sometimes the experience, seniority and ability to canvass effectively within the organisation of those involved in the electoral registration process is relevant. Those with long-standing senior registration officers may have found that they had a better system than those where a more junior officer took the role.

David Cairns: I am sure that is correct. In Scotland there is an additional complication as, by and large—with two exceptions—local authorities do not have their own EROs. They are distributed on a sub-regional basis. Four local authorities contribute to the ERO who covers my constituency, so when the ERO is not in the building or in a particular part of the authority, it is a case of out of sight, out of mind. I think that we all agree that there are a variety of reasons for the wide variance in performance. The aim of the clause, and of my hon. Friend's amendments, is to raise the standard of all local authorities to the level of the best performing authorities.
New section 9A gives the Electoral Commission the power to set and publish performance standards for elections, referendums and electoral services. The commission must consult the Secretary of State on those standards—that goes directly to my hon. Friend's point—and the Secretary of State will lay them before each House of Parliament. It is unthinkable that the Secretary of State would not want hon. Members to have an input into that process; indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State has given a clear commitment. We want to ensure that hon. Members—not just the parties or their leaderships—get the chance to have an input into the consultation that leads to the production of the standards. We do not want to get into trenches and to argue about the issue at official level; we want to do everything as openly and as transparently as we can. When the consultation is under way, we will seek to ensure that hon. Members who want to do so are given every opportunity to participate.

Clive Betts: I very much welcome that assurance, because Back Benchers have been led to believe in the past that consultation means a statutory instrument that we can vote for or against. Given the Minister's comments, I think that we will be going much further in this instance.

David Cairns: Yes, there are no great ideological divides on this issue; it is a matter of getting things right and sharing best practice. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), who is not here, has done the whole House a great service by writing to various EROs, gathering evidence of best practice and disseminating it to other colleagues. That was certainly an eye-opener, because we do not have national standards or national tables. Of course, it should not really be left to the tremendous endeavour of one hon. Member to take those steps; it should be a collective exercise. Clearly, we shall want to proceed in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe indicated.
We expect the standards to lay down a detailed framework of good practice for electoral service administrators, returning officers and polling staff—to follow up a point that I made earlier. They will go well beyond simply stating what the law requires and will indicate what is considered to be the exemplary approach, as well as making it clear that we expect guidance to be followed. 
New section 9B provides for the Electoral Commission to require the relevant electoral officials to provide it with reports on how they have met the standards that have been set and published. Those reports may be published by the relevant officer. The Electoral Commission will also publish reports from time to time, and I shall come to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe on that point in a moment. The commission's reports will set out how the performance standards have been met in particular circumstances or over a range of authorities and/or elections. 
The aim is to provide the commission with the information on which to make a judgment about where there is poor performance, which services are performed poorly and what action to take to assist authorities in reaching the required standards. We do not necessarily want to name and shame—that is what it says in my brief, although in my book a bit of naming and shaming never goes amiss. We do, however, want to identify any weaknesses to see whether they can be corrected, because it is in everyone's interests that they are. As I said, the aim is to achieve transparency and openness. 
Here, we could make a link with the beacon scheme being run by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. Councils can apply for and achieve beacon status as a result of exemplary performance in providing a particular service. The next round of the scheme will feature the delivery of electoral services as one of its themes. Particularly good electoral services departments will be able to apply to become beacon councils in respect of that theme, so good practice will inform the process of setting performance standards. 
New section 9C allows the Electoral Commission to require electoral officials to supply it with data about their expenditure on elections and election services—a point that has exercised my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd at great length. He has done his own back-of-an-envelope calculations on that. We must get  a handle on that matter and secure greater transparency. 
Turning to the specific issues, in part 2 of the Bill, in clause 9, we set out some of the great big themes that will govern how we expect the standards to be framed. We have created the skeleton on which the standards will be built. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe wishes to include further measures in the Bill. I hope that he will withdraw the amendment, because we do not wish to short-circuit the process of consultation by adding measures at this stage. However, I have no doubt that either what he has recommended or something akin to it is bound to form part of the performance standards. I hope and expect that to be the case. If one is going to make the register as full as possible, the type of steps that my hon. Friend has outlined are common-sense ways to achieve that. 
As for the second amendment, my hon. Friend may be less sanguine about my answer. We do not wish to fetter the Electoral Commission's flexibility to ask for reports at an appropriate time. We want those reports to come forward on a regular basis. The two amendments together unnecessarily fetter the ability of the commission to produce reports. The Electoral Commission may, for example, wish to produce a report more frequently than on an annual basis. We have all paid tribute to the work of the Electoral Commission, which is very good at issuing reports, even if we may not always agree with them. We do not wish to tell the commission to issue reports in a certain way at a certain time. We must allow it flexibility and discretion to produce reports as and when it chooses. The commission has set a very good performance standard in producing reports. We do not have too much to fear on that front.

Chris Ruane: I take the point about the Electoral Commission, albeit with a little reservation. However, the essential aim of my amendments was the requirement for the electoral registration officer and other relevant officers to produce an annual report. I accept my hon. Friend's argument that my amendment might fetter the arrangements in such a way that the commission could not produce a report more often than annually. However, perhaps my hon. Friend would consider altering the clause in due course to state that reports must be produced every year and at other times as appropriate, or words to that effect. If we do not tie that down, hon. Members will lose their influence. Most people think that there should be a requirement for the electoral registration officer to produce an annual report.

David Cairns: We are returning to one of the great thematic issues in any Committee—the may versus must debate. The second new section created by clause 61 provides for the Electoral Commission to require relevant electoral officials to provide them with reports on how they have met the standards that have been set and published. It would seem odd, given that the Electoral Commission has been pushing for that—and given that that has the support of everyone in the House—if that were not pursued vigorously. I hear what my hon. Friend says, and I take his point, which  was well made—but I am not minded to go any further at this stage, because we would be in danger of fettering the Commission.
I shall finish on the point raised by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome about Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland Office colleagues are obviously actively looking at those issues. They are considering their position because, as we all know, there are circumstances prevalent in Northern Ireland that are not necessarily prevalent here. They may wish to provide a different set of guidance on this issue. However, I am sure that there would be a large amount of duplication. 
I do not want to accept the amendment at this stage, because I want to allow colleagues in Northern Ireland and others who deal with the politics of Northern Ireland every day to reflect upon whether they wish to be part of the scheme. Northern Ireland electoral legislation is, of course, planned for the relatively near future, so they may wish to incorporate into it all or part of what we have discussed. We have not yet seen the guidance, so we do not know what it will say. 
This is not a matter of not considering that guidance should be issued for Northern Ireland. It is a question of saying that, given the circumstances, it might be best to allow the people there to come to a decision on how they wish to proceed.

David Heath: I am grateful to the Minister, but he might have misunderstood the point made in the amendment by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe. It is clear that the council would produce a report to the Electoral Commission, not that the Electoral Commission would produce a report to us.

David Cairns: I said that the second new section provided for the Electoral Commission to require the relevant electoral officials to provide it with reports on how they have met the standards that have been set and published. The only point on which we are at variance is how often that should happen, and who should trigger it. It is clear that the power is there. I do not think that I misunderstood.

David Heath: I am grateful to the Minister. I will look carefully at the Official Report to see what was said and come to a view. I do not want to press him on the matter, because there is no difference of intention between the two.
On Northern Ireland, I hear what the Minister says. I hope that his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Northern Ireland Office will not unduly delay their consideration of the matter. I would accept it at face value a little more easily were it not for the fact that we need only turn the page to clause 63 to find that 
''A local electoral officer must have regard to any guidance issued by the Electoral Commission''.
Later in that clause we find that a local electoral officer is an electoral registration officer whose duties include dealing with elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, as well as one who deals with 
''local government elections in England and Wales and Northern Ireland'',
so another part of the Bill is already making that connection, regardless of the deep cogitations that are happening in the Northern Ireland Office, and is already insisting that the electoral registration officers in Northern Ireland have regard to the advice of the Electoral Commission. It seems rather perverse for the Government to say that the Electoral Commission may issue instructions, but that it is out of the question for it to have any regard as to whether they have been carried out.

David Cairns: Indeed it would have been perverse had that been the position that I took. Had I said, to quote the hon. Gentleman, ''It will be out of the question'' for the Electoral Commission to have dealings with Northern Ireland, that would have been perverse. What I said was that colleagues in Northern Ireland who deal with the issues every day are considering how best to ensure that such standards apply in Northern Ireland—where there is, after all, only one electoral registration officer. I did not say that it was out of the question for the measures to apply in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman has now mischaracterised my position.

David Heath: The Minister is unnecessarily defensive. If I am not allowed to launch into a little hyperbole on the margins of my comments, it will be much more difficult for me to make my points. I am sure that he understands that although he did not say that it was out of the question, it is certainly not out of the question for the Electoral Commission to provide guidance to the registration officer in Northern Ireland; it says so in clause 63. The problem is simply that clause 61 does not relate to clause 63. Let me say, without any exaggeration, that it is slightly odd that one clause should gallop off in one direction and another should gallop off in a direction that is not identical, although they relate to two parts of the United Kingdom.
I hope that the considerations to which the hon. Gentleman referred will be swiftly concluded, and that on Report we will be able to unite clauses 61 and 63 in a common purpose and ensure that we have a degree of parity between the different parts of the country in terms of the performance of the electoral registration operation.

Clive Betts: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his mainly helpful response to my amendments. It was very helpful indeed that my hon. Friend spelled out the fact that there will be consultation on the guidance on performance standards that will be laid down by the Electoral Commission, and that there will be an opportunity for both Back Benchers and Opposition Front Benchers to comment. We can get a lot of consensus on those matters, and many good ideas will come from people's personal experience and practice. My hon. Friend's response on that matter was helpful.
In relation to my point about the requirements for the various officers, including the electoral registration officers, to produce reports for the Electoral Commission, I still feel that if Members of Parliament think that something is required, they  have a right to require that in the legislation. The Electoral Commission is a body set up by Parliament to do the will of Parliament, and to give us advice on a whole range of matters, so there should be at least an annual report. The wording of the clause could be tightened up, so that we do not fetter discretion for the Electoral Commission to require reports at other times, but at least we should have an annual report from local authorities. 
Perhaps I could help my hon. Friend the Minister out by suggesting that if he is prepared to have another look at this matter, he could indicate that it was one of the matters that he would like to see the Electoral Commission include in the standards of performance. One of the standards of performance could be a requirement for officers to produce at least an annual report. Perhaps the matter could be addressed in that way so that there was no need for a specific provision in the Bill, which might be difficult to change in the future. That would mean that something was clearly laid down, on which we in Parliament would have a chance to comment before it was finalised. That would be helpful to hon. Members.

David Cairns: I am strongly attracted to my hon. Friend's solution; it is an imaginative way forward. However, he will know that I am not in a position to give a firm undertaking that that is what will happen. However, it is an imaginative way forward out of the impasse that we have got ourselves into. I hope that I can give him some reassurance on that matter.

Clive Betts: I am reassured that the Minister is still considering those matters, and I appreciate the way in which he has approached them. With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 63 - Encouraging electoral participation

Henry Bellingham: I beg to move amendment No. 65, in clause 63, page 66, line 3, at beginning insert
'Following receipt of written notification by the Electoral Commission of the intended steps to be taken,'.

Derek Conway: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 66, in clause 63, page 66, line 3, leave out 'he thinks appropriate' and insert 'are reasonable'.

Henry Bellingham: I have not proved to be a very efficient Whip, because I have lost my two Front-Bench spokesmen and all my Back Benchers. However, I understand that these amendments were tabled by the official Opposition, and I will explain briefly what they seek to do. To some extent they follow on from the discussion that we had on clause 61, in which the hon. Members for Sheffield, Attercliffe and for Somerton and Frome pointed out that there is huge disparity in the performance of local electoral officers. 
Amendment No. 65 would insert at the start of clause 63(1): 
''Following receipt of written notification by the Electoral Commission of the intended steps to be taken.''
In other words, the process would only be triggered on receipt of written notification from the Electoral Commission. That makes sense, because if we have a more uniform approach, that should ensure higher standards across the country. That is very much in line with the theme that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe was putting forward a moment ago. 
Subsection (1) says that 
''a local electoral officer may take such steps as he thinks appropriate.''
Amendment No. 66 would replace the phrase ''as he thinks appropriate'' with the phrase ''as are reasonable''. That makes more sense, as ''reasonable'' has a clearer definition in law. There are plenty of definitions of ''reasonable''. It is wider, more objective and less subjective. Saying ''as he thinks appropriate'' could lead to confusion. Trying to interpret what the electoral officer's subjective reasoning might be could be a lawyer's dream. The reasonable test would be clearer and more in line with other legislation.

David Cairns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing us to probe these matters a little further, although we shall revisit how such things should be done at the various stages of consultation that will follow the steps that I outlined earlier. We are giving the Electoral Commission the power to set guidance, which will be issued in due course. We will take part in the consultation that will lead to the guidance. The guidance will then be laid before the House. At that stage, it will have the full authority of Parliament. We are at the beginning of the process. My answer to the amendments is that we should not tie ourselves down too early, but I will do the hon. Gentleman the service of replying in detail.
Clause 63 gives local election officers the power to encourage participation in the electoral process by taking such steps as they think appropriate. Amendment No. 65 would remove the discretion of electoral officers to take steps to encourage participation without prior notification from the Electoral Commission of what actions they should take. In other words, we want national standards. We want the commission to raise the bar for everyone, but we do not want people to have to wait until they have the explicit permission of the Electoral Commission so to do. We want a thousand flowers to bloom. However, it is important that such things are monitored, and we need a framework against which we can measure whether something has been successful. 
Clause 63 is designed to allow local election officers to run campaigns to encourage participation that are tailored to the local area. It is intended to complement the work of the Electoral Commission and not be a mere extension of it. Election officers might want to design initiatives and campaigns more appropriate to the needs of the local area. We do not want to prevent them from doing that. The clause already states that  election officers should take into account any guidance issued by the commission. We feel that that is sufficient to make the amendment unnecessary. 
Amendment No. 66 would change clause 63 so that a local election officer must take steps that are considered reasonable rather than take steps that he thinks are appropriate to encourage participation. Imposing a standard of reasonableness is often difficult, and sometimes not appropriate. We believe that election officers should have the discretion to take any actions they feel are necessary to encourage participation in the local area. 
As the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk said, the amendment would change that discretion by implying that those actions would be scrutinised by another party. That is unnecessary. Local election officers have to take account of existing guidance from the Electoral Commission; they will also have to take account of guidance issued under the clause. We should not imagine that there is no guidance at present and that the national framework standards are bringing in something new. Guidance already exists, and election officers have to work within it. Given that overall envelope, we do not want to fetter them unduly by making them an extension or local branch of the commission. We want to encourage them to have some degree of flexibility. With that assurance, and with my initial response that we are at the beginning of a long discussion, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to the Minister for his generous and constructive response to my probing amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 65 - Restriction on powers of arrest by

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Heath: Mr. Conway, I seek the Minister's guidance on this clause. I was slightly puzzled by it when I read it. It would appear to remove the power of citizen's arrest for those who are committing, or suspected of committing, an offence of personation in a polling station. I understand that much; that would appear to be the purport of the clause. However, I made, perhaps, the mistake of reading the explanatory notes, which take us into much deeper water. Can the Minister explain to us what they mean? It starts:
''This clause maintains the current position that the power of arrest without warrant of a person suspected of committing personation inside a polling station rests with a police constable only.''
That is consonant with what I had understood. However, it goes on to say: 
''Without this provision, the amendments made by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 to sections 24 and 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 would allow any person who has reasonable grounds for suspecting another person of being guilty of the offence inside a polling station to make an arrest.''
I understand that, although I am not sure necessarily that I do not want people to be detained if they are committing an act of personation in a polling station when there is no police constable around, but let us set that aside for the moment. The next sentence says: 
''For personation outside a polling station or fraudulent applications for absent votes, the provisions of section 24 and 24A of the 1984 Act will, however, automatically apply because of the seriousness of the offence and the level of the penalty.''
I understand that that means that citizen's arrest is available for someone who is filling in an application form in their kitchen, and doing so fraudulently by claiming to be somebody else. Somebody could walk into that kitchen and make a citizen's arrest, but they could not do it if somebody walks into a polling station and says that if they are somebody whom they are not. I do not understand that differentiation. The notes go on further: 
''The effect of this clause, and provisions in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, is to implement the recommendation by the Electoral Commission that the existing provisions relating to personation should be extended to give the police the power of arrest at any location, not just at polling stations.''
However, it does not do that; the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005—I served on the Standing Committee for that Bill, and participated in all it stages—gives the powers of arrest to a constable for any offence under any circumstances, so the police have the power of arrest for this offence wherever it occurs. The clause cannot possibly extend the police's power of arrest because even a cursory reading of the clause suggests that it is a restriction of the powers of arrest of persons other than constables. I am completely at a loss as to what the explanatory notes are explaining; I do not understand how the power of a constable is extended, because that is not the case. 
I can see that the clause confirms the power of a constable, which the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 already does, to make an arrest in a polling station. I can see that it prevents a citizen's arrest happening within a polling station, but it says that it could happen at any other place; so a concerned citizen can make an arrest when the person has left the polling station if they suspect them of having committed an offence but cannot do so while they are in the polling station. That makes no sense at all. 
There must be some answer to that conundrum that I cannot fathom at the moment. I hope that the Minister will be able to help me; it may simply be that the explanatory notes bear scant resemblance to the clause. That is the easiest consequence to understand in some ways, but if it is not that, can the Minister please explain to me what the clause does and how it accomplishes what the explanatory notes suggest that it does?

David Cairns: I am tempted to say that this is neither the time nor the place to get involved in such a discussion, but I shall attempt to address the hon. Gentleman's points; no doubt not to his satisfaction,  nor in terms of his reinterpretation of what I say when he comes to sum up. However, I shall leave that to his discretion.
The purpose of the clause is to maintain the position that the power of arrest without warrant of a person suspected of committing personation inside a polling station rests with a police constable only. It might help the Committee if I explained what is meant by personation. That is the offence committed by somebody who votes in person or by post as some other person, without that person's consent, in order to use his or her vote. If proven, it can result in imprisonment for up to two years or a fine or both. 
At present, only a police officer may arrest a person who is inside a polling station and is suspected of personation. The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, on which I served as a Back Bencher, will alter the law from 1 January 2006 to provide that any person who has reasonable grounds for suspecting another person of being guilty of an offence may make an arrest if it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make the arrest himself. The power has been limited to serious indictable offences, which will include personation. In relation to electoral law, that means that if the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 were not amended, inside a polling station it would be possible for any person, not just a police officer, to make an arrest for suspected personation. 
That is the point at which there has to be a judgment call. We do not think that that would be desirable; it could be a recipe for confusion and disorder in polling stations if citizens' arrests were being attempted while others continued the important and vital process of voting. However, I can understand why that might seem a puzzling distinction to make. The judgment of the greater good is that what should continue should be the process of people voting on a particular day in the few hours that are set aside for that purpose. 
We think that we should maintain the current position that only police officers may make arrests inside a polling station. However, outside a polling station—I think that this is the discrepancy that the hon. Gentleman was highlighting; it is certainly a difference—we think that the changes made by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 should apply. That will provide a useful weapon to address personation and fraud also in relation to postal voting, which will inevitably take place away from the polling station. As has been said, it is unlikely that a police officer will be on hand to make an arrest should it be thought that an offence is being committed in somebody's kitchen. 
We do not want presiding officers and poll clerks to arrest people which, without the introduction of these provisions, they could do. I accept that we are making a distinction between what goes on inside a polling station and what goes on outside it. That is to do with making a judgment about not wishing to cause undue—I am trying to think of the parliamentary word for kerfuffle—inside a polling station while people are going about, if I may now be hi-falutin', the sacred task of casting their votes. I hope that I have shed a bit of light on our position on the clause.

David Heath: First, I am grateful to the Minister. I understand what he has said, but I am not sure that I agree with him. It is certainly not what the explanatory memorandum says. I would still ask him to consider the last sentence of the explanatory memorandum on this clause:
''The effect of this clause . . . is to implement the recommendation by the Electoral Commission that the existing provisions relating to personation should be extended to give the police the power of arrest at any location, not just at polling stations.''
That is transparently not what the clause does. It does the reverse. It prevents anybody else from making an arrest inside a polling station. If it is felt that the polling process should not be disturbed by an arrest, it is hard to understand why a police constable should make that arrest within a polling station.—[Interruption]. The Minister says that there is a distinction, but not in law. 
If he recalls, in our debates on the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, the Government's proposition—not mine—was that the power of arrest should be extended to any offence, not just to a serious indictable offence, by any citizen. It was only when we defeated them on that matter that the Government changed their mind and adopted the proposition that is now in the Act. The Government's position was that anyone should be able to arrest anybody, anywhere for anything.—[Interruption.] The Minister suggests that that is a general principle and I have no difficulty in believing that that is the basis on which the Government work. 
I understand why the hon. Gentleman does not want presiding officers to make an arrest, but the effect probably will be that people will not be arrested because, unfortunately, there are relatively few polling stations that have a police officer on duty as they used to. There was a time when every polling station had a constable on duty, but not now. Thus there will not be arrests for personation. I have looked again at the clause and I have become aware of something that I should have noticed in the first instance, that it would not be possible for a person to make an arrest outside the polling station because the proposal applies only 
''if the offence is committed or is suspected of being committed inside a polling station.''
That is the only place where a person can commit the offence of personation, other than when filling in an application form for a postal vote. In effect, it means that a person will not be arrested for personation unless there is a police constable at the polling station. The offence will not be prosecuted unless it is possible to trace a person later without knowing who they are and why they were personating another person. If that is the Government's position, at least it is comprehensible; I am not sure I agree with it but I do not want to pursue it.

David Cairns: I need to clarify the issue. Most people would understand that in the confines of a polling station there is a difference between a police officer coming in and arresting someone and a candidate trying to arrest another candidate, in which case the presiding officer would have to go to  the police station. A citizen's arrest inside the polling station could cause more harm than it would prevent.
The overall effect of the clause, taken with provisions in the Serious and Organised Crime Act 2005 is to implement the recommendation by the Electoral Commission that the existing provisions relating to personation should be extended to give the police a power of arrest at any location that they currently have prior to this proposal, not just at the polling station itself.

David Heath: I am sorry, but I do not accept that that is what the clause says. I will leave the Minister to read it at his leisure. I do not accept that it gives any additional power to a police constable. It is a restriction on the powers of arrest by persons other than constables. If one construes the provision in a particular way, it removes the power of arrest anywhere for a person who has committed the offence of personation. The Minister may disagree but the clause says
''if the offence is committed or is suspected of being committed inside a polling station.''
That is where the offence is committed, or is suspected of being committed. The first part of the clause states that it 
''does not permit a person other than a constable to arrest''.
If someone had been to the polling station before me and cast their vote in my name, saying, ''I am David Heath,'' and there was no policeman to be seen—there will not be a policeman in Witham Friary for six months after an election because we do not have policemen there—nothing could be done.—[Interruption.] I could not arrest that person. This is not a trivial point.

David Cairns: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood it.

David Heath: I am reading what the clause says. I cannot make a citizen's arrest outside the polling station.

Kevin Brennan: Why not?

David Heath: Because I am not a constable and, under the clause, I cannot make a citizen's arrest and arrest outside the polling station someone who commits or who is suspected of committing an offence if the offence is committed or is suspected of having been committed inside a polling station. That is where the offence has been committed. It has not been committed outside, so I cannot detain that person outside the polling station.
The Under-Secretary needs to reconstruct the clause if he intends it to read that a person may not make a citizen's arrest inside a polling station, so that it is possible to make a citizen's arrest outside the polling station for an offence that is committed inside. At the moment, however, the clause says that no one other than a police constable may detain that person as he leaves the polling station and say, ''You have just committed an offence and I am detaining you under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984,'' until a police constable can effect an arrest. That is the effect of the clause. 
I do not want to strain the patience of the Committee any longer, but the Under-Secretary needs to consider very carefully what the clause says, because it does not say what he believes it to say. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Further consideration adjourned—[Mr. Brennan.] 
Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Four o'clock till Tuesday 22 November at half-past Ten o'clock.